This invention teaches a novel ultra-light rock-climbing wall comprising a pliable climbing-wall matrix upon which rock/gymnastic-climbing holds are mounted at variable spacings. A pliable climbing-wall matrix is defined to be sufficiently thin and supple to be folded or rolled up for storage. Examples include fabric, mesh, netting, and thin, supple solid sheets or meshes. This invention also teaches various climbing-wall structures featuring pliable climbing-wall matrices. The term xe2x80x9crock climbingxe2x80x9d refers to climbing via variable, positionable climbing holds on steep or overhanging climbing surfaces or matricesxe2x80x94as is practiced on rock-climbing cliffs and in rock-climbing gyms. This invention also teaches the use of xe2x80x9csafety surfacesxe2x80x9d which are located beneath and rise up following climbing surfaces at a safe distancexe2x80x94to prevent falling injury and eliminate the need for safety ropes. The preferred embodiment features a mesh climbing matrix and a net safety surface both of which are stretched from ground anchors over centrally positioned support poles.
The combination of a mesh climbing matrix and rock-climbing/gymnastic holds leads to a product featuring low cost, very light weight, easy assembly, convenient storage in a small space, and challenging rock climbing. To achieve convenient storage one must utilize minimal structural elements along with fabric or net climbing/safety surfaces. Challenging climbing is guaranteed with varied rock-climbing/gymnastic holds on steep surfaces and on the underside of overhanging walls, and the safety surfaces are sufficiently compliant to safely break a fall. The smallest versions of this invention would be portable and storable in a closet space, medium-sized versions could be stored in a back yard or shed, and large versions could be used in indoor gyms or amusement parks.
Prior art rock-climbing walls utilize rigid, heavy, expensive panels with attached rock-climbing holds; this is true even for the portable versions. Prior children""s climbing playgrounds do not provide for interesting climbingxe2x80x94in the sense that rock climbing can be very challenging, difficult, varied and gymnasticxe2x80x94because they feature climbing surfaces which allow only steep crawling or boring climbing on regular features such as a net or a cable. It should be obvious to anyone who has seen real rock climbing that there is a significant qualitative difference between climbing a fence or a net and climbing a rock climbing wall. The key insight here is that this qualitative difference derives from a structural difference. Namely, rock-climbing/gymnastic holds are affixed to a rock-climbing wallxe2x80x94in which case it is possible to space the holds so that reaching and utilizing the next hold can be difficult and interesting. In addition, it is possible to vary the shape, size, and orientation of the holdsxe2x80x94so that both creativity and endurance are needed to complete a climbing route. Finally, in neither of the two prior art categoriesxe2x80x94(1) rock climbing walls and (2) children""s xe2x80x9ceasy-climbingxe2x80x9d playgroundsxe2x80x94is there a provision for xe2x80x9cropelessxe2x80x9d climbing in which safety surfaces follow the climbing surfaces in such a way that long climbing routes can be safely climbed without the use of a rope.
The important point, with regard to distinguishing the current patent from prior art, is that the same word, xe2x80x9cclimbing,xe2x80x9d is used, both in everyday language and in patent literature, to describe several distinct activities: walking or crawling up a steep incline, climbing steps, climbing a ladder or rope ladder, climbing a net or a rope, and (what is being called in the current patent) xe2x80x9crock climbing.xe2x80x9d The resulting ambiguity leads to semantic confusion. The solution of this confusion is to carefully define and delineate between these distinct xe2x80x9cclimbingxe2x80x9d activities and to show that these distinctions are based on the details of the structure or surface upon which the particular type of climbing is being done.
The patent of Baxter (1985) [U.S. Pat. No. 4,546,965] discloses a crawling surface for children to crawl up an irregular surface on the top side of two flat panels hinged together and configured in a xe2x80x9cpup tentxe2x80x9d shape. The important differences between Baxter and the current invention include the following. The restriction to flat panels limits the size of the apparatus in that it cannot be reduced to a size smaller than the flat panels for storage. Also, the use of flat panels as a climbing surface (referred to herein as a climbing matrix upon which holds are mounted) results in a heavy and expensive product. And, there is no integral provision for safety. Furthermore, the restriction of flat panels at two fixed inclines makes this invention unsuitable for challenging and varied climbing. Nor does Baxter teach rock-climbing holds on steep or overhanging climbing surfaces. Consequently, the invention of Baxter is really for crawling. Another patent, of Robinson et al (1999) [U.S. Pat. No. 5,941,041], discloses panels with climbing holds. This construction is not optimally light or storable, and there is no integral provision for safety surfaces.
An example of a playground maze apparatus is disclosed by Showers (1993) [U.S. Pat. No. 5,226,864]. This is essentially a playhouse comprising many cubicles stacked above and beside one another. There are net restraints on the outside of the maze to prevent children from falling to the ground, but these are not high enough to allow climbing. Even if they were high enough to allow climbing, the climbing would be uncomfortable to the fingers and boring, as is the case when we climb a wire fence. Clearly, there is no intent to use the net restraints for climbing. Nor is there any provision for rock-climbing holds which follow a potentially long route on what is referred to as a xe2x80x9cclimbing surfacexe2x80x9d in the current patent. Any climbing a child could do would be limited to simply pulling herself through a hole from one cubicle to another, and this does make for interesting, challenging climbing, except perhaps for toddlers. Showers teaches a net on the outer wall of this maze which might be scaled if the mesh were not too fine or sharp, but again such a practice should not be confused with real climbing in which a substantial portion of one""s weight is supported by one""s fingers and in which the climbs are made interesting by the variety, the spareness, and the difficulty of the rock-climbing holds. Also, there is no real provision for climbing on the outside of the maze, and, if a child were to attempt to scale the outside of the maze, he would be injured since there is no provision for safety surfaces to break a long fall. Furthermore, the xe2x80x9csafety surfacesxe2x80x9d defined in the specifications of the current patent are designed to catch a vertical fall by yielding while at the same time slowing the fall. The xe2x80x9cwall restraintsxe2x80x9d of Showers do not perform that xe2x80x9csafety netxe2x80x9d function.
Another example of a playground maze apparatus is disclosed by Petersheim (1995) [U.S. Pat. No. 5,405,304]. In this case netting is strung at a steep angle to allow an infant to crawl/climb from one compartment to another. This netting is intended only for steep crawling; it does not incorporate rock-climbing holds as will be defined later in the specifications of the current patent. Also, the structure is limited in height, or it would be unsafexe2x80x94in that children could fall from the top of the net to the ground. For these reasons, the structure as shown could not provide for challenging and interesting rock climbing. In addition, the infrastructure is heavy, and could not be easily dissembled.
The patent of Katz (2000) [U.S. Pat. No. 6,095,950] discloses a structure comprising three support poles and attached plates with projections for climbing. This is not nearly as lightweight and portable as the current invention because the attached plates and the associated infrastructure are inherently heavy and not foldable to a small storage space. And, the disassembly would be much more difficult.
The Gennan patent, DE 2927-546 [January, 1981] of Udo and Kohler, teaches a vertical net suspended from a curved rod which extends up from its point of attachment in the ground and then bends over sideways to its attachment to the net, thereby preventing interference between the rod and the children climbing on the net. And, there are various other configurations of poles and nets. This patent has no provision for rock-climbing holds on the nets, and therefore it cannot be used for interesting xe2x80x9crock climbing.xe2x80x9d Also, there are no safety surfaces, and the climbing surface is restricted to being only a net.
The distinction between climbing a net (as just discussed in the prior patents of Showers, Petersheim, and Udo), and climbing the xe2x80x9cclimbing surfacesxe2x80x9d of the current patent can be better understood as follows. In the current patent, a pliable surface which can be a net (a fabric or a mesh), serves as a climbing matrix upon which are mounted holds of variable difficulty. In the patent of Udo, the climbing matrix is the net, and the net is also used for climbing, but there are no rock-climbing/gymnastic holds. The resulting net-climbing must be boring even if it is strenuous, because the spacing of the strands used for climbing is regular and small, and it is always easy to reach another net strand. Therefore, there is a xe2x80x9cclimbing-wallxe2x80x9d structural difference between the prior art and the current patent, and this difference results in a very different invention and a very different type of activity by users.
This invention teaches a novel ultra-light rock-climbing wall comprising a pliable climbing-wall matrix upon which rock/gymnastic-climbing holds are mounted at variable spacings. This invention is on the one hand, optimally lightweight and on the other hand, optimally easy to put up, take down, and store. The term xe2x80x9crock climbingxe2x80x9d refers to climbing via variably shaped, sized, and spaced climbing holds on steep or overhanging xe2x80x9cclimbing surfacesxe2x80x9dxe2x80x94as is done on climbing cliffs and in climbing gyms. Additional innovative climbing holds incorporated in the current patent include (1) xe2x80x9cgymnastic holdsxe2x80x9d which are defined to include swinging holds and xe2x80x9csuspension holds.xe2x80x9d Suspension holds are suspended in space in a manner that constrains them from swinging. These three types of climbing holds will be collectively referred to as xe2x80x9crock-climbing/gymnastic holdsxe2x80x9dxe2x80x94in the current patent.
This invention also teaches the use of xe2x80x9csafety surfacesxe2x80x9d which are an integral part of the rock-climbing playground, and which are located beneath and follow up the climbing surfaces at a safe distancexe2x80x94to prevent injury due to falling, thereby permitting xe2x80x9cropelessxe2x80x9d climbing. These safety surfaces are most conveniently made of fabric or netting, which are stretched from ground anchors over support poles. This fabrication uses minimal material and allows minimal storage space, while still permitting challenging climbing. Other embodiments take advantage of pre-existing objects such as fences, trees, or walls to serve as tension anchors (in place of ground anchors) or to serve as supports for the climbing surfaces (comprising a mesh matrix with mounted rock-climbing/gymnastic holds). Finally, the scale of this invention ranges from very small to very large.